When I'm moving, I cannot see directly in front of me due to where I place my purse on which I prop the notebook containing my list. Nor can I see if my cart is full if I have a tall object in it. And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves.

It is quite conceivable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm moving and I wouldn't see him. It is also concievable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm stopped and about to start moving again. There is no way I can move my purse and clear my cart of the objects it holds every time I start walking again.

It is the parent's job to keep her kid out of harm's way.

If I heard a parent call, "Watch out!" while I'm moving or about to move again, I would think she or he is talking to me because I would not see the child to whom this is addressed, and it would irritate me.

In that case I think you are being rude for looking elsewhere while moving your cart. You should be watching where you are going. And I am sorry, but just because something irritates you does not make it rude.

I should come to a stop every time I look at the shelves?

Yes, if you are looking at the shelves you should be stopped. If you are glancing at them, which is what I think you are referring to, then no, I don't think you should have to stop. But the point is that you are probably not going to miss a veering toddler by glancing away for moment.

No, Dandy Andy's Daddy's Love. The point is that if the parent were controlling the toddler, there would be nothing to watch out for.

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park. There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path. The child moved into my path. So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in. Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying. She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her. But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT". I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision.

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured. Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son. They are hypothetical situations. They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults. At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash. Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going. OP is managing this with her DS just fine. There haven't been any accidents. When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course.

There is a potential that that could happen, and it is the job of the parent to keep her kid out of the way of others. Just because an accident hasn't happened yet doesn't mean one will not happen.

As for it happening to an adult, that's impossible if the adult is not the size of a typical two-year-old toddler.

There is no way I could keep a look out for a toddler in this situation because my view is blocked by my purse and the items in my cart. I'd have to move my body from behind the cart to the side so that I could look in front of it, and my head from eye-level to the floor.

And, while I'm moving my body from the back of the cart, I'd have to make sure there was no one coming up from behind me so that I'd not be hit by their cart.

LeeveeWoman, I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm more addressing the comment that, when you're moving, you're always looking straight ahead of you. That's not how people shop. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that everyone is shopping pretty much the same way - when they're moving, they're also looking at shelves (not with tunnel vision to where they don't see elsewhere, but still not always looking straight ahead of them).

It's the same thing when you drive. You don't constantly look tunnel-visioned straight ahead of you. You're looking at cross streets and signs and the rear-view mirror, etc. That's not to say that you barrel into other cars ahead of you - of course you're looking at what's in front of you. But you're also looking at the street signs to see if this is where you turn right or whatever.

The child still learns independence while holding onto the cart; furthermore, the OP has indicated that her reason for going free range is that the child objects to anything else. I am interested in the OP's response.

Absolutely, and I think that at this point it may be a good idea. But he's going to have to let go of the cart sometime.

Yeah, when he's learned to pay better attention and not wander aimlessly. Most 2-3 year olds simply can't manage that, and the time to teach them isn't where it would inconvenience a whole bunch of other people. The time to teach him, as rashea pointed out, is in other situations where he can practice (and fail) without risk.

When I'm moving, I cannot see directly in front of me due to where I place my purse on which I prop the notebook containing my list. Nor can I see if my cart is full if I have a tall object in it. And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves.

It is quite conceivable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm moving and I wouldn't see him. It is also concievable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm stopped and about to start moving again. There is no way I can move my purse and clear my cart of the objects it holds every time I start walking again.

It is the parent's job to keep her kid out of harm's way.

If I heard a parent call, "Watch out!" while I'm moving or about to move again, I would think she or he is talking to me because I would not see the child to whom this is addressed, and it would irritate me.

In that case I think you are being rude for looking elsewhere while moving your cart. You should be watching where you are going. And I am sorry, but just because something irritates you does not make it rude.

I should come to a stop every time I look at the shelves?

Yes, if you are looking at the shelves you should be stopped. If you are glancing at them, which is what I think you are referring to, then no, I don't think you should have to stop. But the point is that you are probably not going to miss a veering toddler by glancing away for moment.

Yes, that is what I'm doing. But, I still would not be able to see a child in front of my cart, even if I were standing still. Nor should I be obligated to check the front of my cart everytime I start moving again or when I'm moving. It's not my job.

No, Dandy Andy's Daddy's Love. The point is that if the parent were controlling the toddler, there would be nothing to watch out for.

The parent is controlling the toddler.

If he is bumping into walls, doors and people as stated in the OP ( true she's modified it but her OP stated that he runs into "walls, doors and people for the past few months") she is not. It's one thing at home - it's totally another in a public place. The kid may be part of "the public" but everyone else is too and shopping should not be an obstacle course.

There is no way I could keep a look out for a toddler in this situation because my view is blocked by my purse and the items in my cart. I'd have to move my body from behind the cart to the side so that I could look in front of it, and my head from eye-level to the floor.

And, while I'm moving my body from the back of the cart, I'd have to make sure there was no one coming up from behind me so that I'd not be hit by their cart.

LeeveeWoman, I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm more addressing the comment that, when you're moving, you're always looking straight ahead of you. That's not how people shop. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that everyone is shopping pretty much the same way - when they're moving, they're also looking at shelves (not with tunnel vision to where they don't see elsewhere, but still not always looking straight ahead of them).

It's the same thing when you drive. You don't constantly look tunnel-visioned straight ahead of you. You're looking at cross streets and signs and the rear-view mirror, etc. That's not to say that you barrel into other cars ahead of you - of course you're looking at what's in front of you. But you're also looking at the street signs to see if this is where you turn right or whatever.

Shygirl, I think you're fine. My only recommendation would be to say "Watch out, DS" and then apologize to the person he got in the way of. You describe him as walking, not running and state he's about 1-2 feet away from you. He's not running amok. He doesn't have a vision problem. He's two and isn't vigilant about watching where he's going.

You're getting criticized for sometimes giving him fries when he's in the shopping cart so he doesn't cry. But I've seen threads get really heated here when parents are in public with fussing/crying children and many posters feel that's rude. Some people think you're wrong to have him quiet with fries in a cart, some people will think you're rude to let him fuss it out minus the fries in the cart, and others may think you should stay home and order groceries online.

You can't please everyone and it sounds like you are making the best of a tricky situation. No actual individuals have been harmed. All you've had to do is remind your son to watch where he's going when he's walking. Continue to keep an eye on him and try other methods to keep him engaged in your errands.

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park. There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path. The child moved into my path. So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in. Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying. She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her. But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT". I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision.

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured. Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son. They are hypothetical situations. They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults. At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash. Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going. OP is managing this with her DS just fine. There haven't been any accidents. When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course.

There is a potential that that could happen, and it is the job of the parent to keep her kid out of the way of others. Just because an accident hasn't happened yet doesn't mean one will not happen.

As for it happening to an adult, that's impossible if the adult is not the size of a typical two-year-old toddler.

A parent, short of having constant physical contact on their child, can never fully guarantee they won't veer/run/get in someone's way. Not just toddlers, but 4 year olds or 8 year olds can potentially act out and cause calamity. I don't think that etiquette demands a parent must have physical control over children to ensure potential accidents do not occur.

And plenty of adults have careless moments. I've seen adults pushing loaded shopping carts out into the main aisles at a brisk pace without checking to see for cross-traffic. Adults can go too fast and not watch where they are going. It's human! So accidents can result from these behaviors be they from adults or children. When everyone is careful, we minimize that risk. And as I mentioned, in my opinion, that doesn't mean a parent must always exercise constant physical control over their child.

No, Dandy Andy's Daddy's Love. The point is that if the parent were controlling the toddler, there would be nothing to watch out for.

The parent is controlling the toddler.

I think if she's reverting to "yelling" (or even loudly speaking) "watch out" most times (OP, maybe you could clarify, but I got the impression it was pretty regular) they have these short "5 minute" trips into the grocery store then she isn't controlling him. In a 5 minute trip if he can't pay attention enough that she reminds him repeatedly and still has to say "watch out" then he isn't ready to walk independently.

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park. There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path. The child moved into my path. So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in. Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying. She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her. But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT". I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision.

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured. Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son. They are hypothetical situations. They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults. At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash. Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going. OP is managing this with her DS just fine. There haven't been any accidents. When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course.

There is a potential that that could happen, and it is the job of the parent to keep her kid out of the way of others. Just because an accident hasn't happened yet doesn't mean one will not happen.

As for it happening to an adult, that's impossible if the adult is not the size of a typical two-year-old toddler.

A parent, short of having constant physical contact on their child, can never fully guarantee they won't veer/run/get in someone's way. Not just toddlers, but 4 year olds or 8 year olds can potentially act out and cause calamity. I don't think that etiquette demands a parent must have physical control over children to ensure potential accidents do not occur.

And plenty of adults have careless moments. I've seen adults pushing loaded shopping carts out into the main aisles at a brisk pace without checking to see for cross-traffic. Adults can go too fast and not watch where they are going. It's human! So accidents can result from these behaviors be they from adults or children. When everyone is careful, we minimize that risk. And as I mentioned, in my opinion, that doesn't mean a parent must always exercise constant physical control over their child.

We are not talking about four-year-old or eight-year-old children, or about adults. We are talking about a two-year-old child. I believe that etiquette demands that we keep kids of that age from being a danger to themselves and to others in such places as a grocery store.

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park. There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path. The child moved into my path. So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in. Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying. She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her. But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT". I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision.

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured. Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son. They are hypothetical situations. They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults. At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash. Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going. OP is managing this with her DS just fine. There haven't been any accidents. When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course.

There is a potential that that could happen, and it is the job of the parent to keep her kid out of the way of others. Just because an accident hasn't happened yet doesn't mean one will not happen.

As for it happening to an adult, that's impossible if the adult is not the size of a typical two-year-old toddler.

A parent, short of having constant physical contact on their child, can never fully guarantee they won't veer/run/get in someone's way. Not just toddlers, but 4 year olds or 8 year olds can potentially act out and cause calamity. I don't think that etiquette demands a parent must have physical control over children to ensure potential accidents do not occur.

And plenty of adults have careless moments. I've seen adults pushing loaded shopping carts out into the main aisles at a brisk pace without checking to see for cross-traffic. Adults can go too fast and not watch where they are going. It's human! So accidents can result from these behaviors be they from adults or children. When everyone is careful, we minimize that risk. And as I mentioned, in my opinion, that doesn't mean a parent must always exercise constant physical control over their child.

I think you have to apply some sort of "reasonable person test" to this. So, is it reasonable to expect most adults, or most 4 or 8 year olds not to go wandering off to the extent that they have to be reminded several times in the span of a few minutes? The answer is clearly yes. Is it reasonable to expect that level of control from a 2-3 year old who has consistently demonstrated he isn't capable? No, it really isn't. Other measures, like maintaining physical contact or putting him in the cart are needed.

No, Dandy Andy's Daddy's Love. The point is that if the parent were controlling the toddler, there would be nothing to watch out for.

The parent is controlling the toddler.

I think if she's reverting to "yelling" (or even loudly speaking) "watch out" most times (OP, maybe you could clarify, but I got the impression it was pretty regular) they have these short "5 minute" trips into the grocery store then she isn't controlling him. In a 5 minute trip if he can't pay attention enough that she reminds him repeatedly and still has to say "watch out" then he isn't ready to walk independently.

I am all for toddlers being under physical control of their guardians - but actually what you describe is a pretty typical toddler. That's why I think they need to be under physical control in public, it's not that the toddler is bad or the parent is negligent , but that they are like living Tiggers "(bounce,bounce, bounce and oh yeah, BOUNCE) and can cause issues for them selves or others. 4 year olds, 8 years or even 30 years old just don't have that energy or daredevilness that makes two year olds so fun - and dangerous.

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park. There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path. The child moved into my path. So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in. Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying. She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her. But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT". I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision.

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured. Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son. They are hypothetical situations. They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults. At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash. Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going. OP is managing this with her DS just fine. There haven't been any accidents. When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course.

There is a potential that that could happen, and it is the job of the parent to keep her kid out of the way of others. Just because an accident hasn't happened yet doesn't mean one will not happen.

As for it happening to an adult, that's impossible if the adult is not the size of a typical two-year-old toddler.

A parent, short of having constant physical contact on their child, can never fully guarantee they won't veer/run/get in someone's way. Not just toddlers, but 4 year olds or 8 year olds can potentially act out and cause calamity. I don't think that etiquette demands a parent must have physical control over children to ensure potential accidents do not occur.

And plenty of adults have careless moments. I've seen adults pushing loaded shopping carts out into the main aisles at a brisk pace without checking to see for cross-traffic. Adults can go too fast and not watch where they are going. It's human! So accidents can result from these behaviors be they from adults or children. When everyone is careful, we minimize that risk. And as I mentioned, in my opinion, that doesn't mean a parent must always exercise constant physical control over their child.

We are not talking about four-year-old or eight-year-old children, or about adults. We are talking about a two-year-old child. I believe that etiquette demands that we keep kids of that age from being a danger to themselves and to others in such places as a grocery store.

Okay, specifically to the OP we are talking about a 2 year old. A 2 year old who is walking and only 1-2 feet away from his mother. He has not run amok. He has not caused an accident. He has not bumped into a person or a cart.

He has drifted, yes, but his mother has told him to "watch out" and thus remedied the situation.

4 year olds, 8 year olds, accidents, and running amok are all outside of the OP. I do agree with that!